And what would Russia gain by nuking Finland?fatherchristmas wrote: They didn't have to nuke Georgia. The Russians simply rolled in with a few tanks after they were attacked and the country was occupied. Georgia was staged to make McCain look like a strongman during the elections but that's a different story. It's interesting that you bring up Georgia. Their active military is larger than Finland's and their military spending is about the same.
Or would Russia do it for !"#¤% and giggles?
You wage wars to gain something. Nuclear wasteland is not very enviable gain, and fallout would drift to Russia as well.
So only realistic threat would be conventional attack, against which Finnish military works. It would not win the war, but purpose is not to defeat Russia. Simply make cost of invasion far outweigh the benefits gained.
No they should not be valued equally.My point is that joining the army or doing the much longer civil service should be valued equally. Finland is not at war and probably won't be so all the primitive macho homophobic strongman talk is for nothing.
In one, you prepare to put your life at risk to preserve this country. On the other, you make statement that you are such a pathetic creature you would rather drop your pants and bend over than fight for what is yours.
Finland is not at war, and if we maintain military which makes invasion unprofitable enterprise... We most likely never will be. But civil service people do not make such enterprises unprofitable. Because they are worthless militarily.